Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 002

Friday, September 21 2001

• Re: Hashem judging on RH
• Chabad vs Polish chassidus
• re: Dimmer switches on Y"T
• Re: Dimmer switches on Y"T
• Prozbul
• Fwd: Re: Lubavitch Philosophy
• ksivas sefer Torah
• Re: Hashem judging on RH
• RE: Hashem judging on RH
• Hashem Judging on RH
• Re: Yom Hazikaron
• Re: Yom Hazikaron
• RE: Prozbul
• Re: Prozbul
• haftarot elul-tishri
• Shabbath Shuva
• sechar veonesh
• Re: Lubavitch Philosophy
• Re: Lubavitch Philosophy
• Techeles
• Re: Haben yaqir li Ephraim
• Re: Kinus, Part II
• Morality and following the Will of G-d

[Be'oso inyan. -mi]

Isn't the determination of which day is 1 Tishrei "merely" a rabbinic
decree as well?

As Simcha states, the heavenly court is apparantly convened when we
ask it to.

Quoting myself, here's a snippet from
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/unsanehTokef.html>:
> R. Eliyahu Shaviv, of Yeshivat Har Etzion, creates a fascinating mental
> image. Rosh Hashanah is on Rosh Chodesh, the day of the new moon. It
> was up to Sanhedrin to accept two witnesses who saw the new moon, and
> then they sanctify the month.
...
> G-d "sits" on his throne, which, UT tells us, represents His Kindness. A
> king can be kind, a dictator must rule by force. All the tziva'os
> hashamyim, the legion of angels of the heavens, are stand ready to
> declare G-d's kingship over the universe(s). Malkiel (the angel whose
> name means G-d is my king) stands ready with "crown" and "scepter".

> And they stand there, and wait. For what? For two pushete yidden, two
> simple Jews, to say "we have seen the new moon" so that Sanhedrin will
> declare the day the first of Tishrei.

> Uvo sinasei malchusechah -- on this day we will carry Your Kingship. It
> is the task of the Jewish people alone. People, human beings with free
> will, loftier than angels because we have the potential for growth,
> to hear and head that small thin voice. It is out task to bring that
> message to the rest of humanity. If two Jews do not declare it so --
> it is not coronation day!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

What is Tekunos Liozna?

Shlomo Goldstein

First of all, I think we should agree that it is entirely possible
that there are several kinds of dimmers on the market. It is possible
that you are speaking of a totally different kind of dimmer than I am
familiar with.

<<< Dimmers do NOT vary the amount of electricity that runs through the
wire. That would require redirecting too much current through a resistor
within the dimmer instead of the bulb. The design actually used saves
total power consumption when the lights are dimmed. >>>

The kind of dimmer that I am familiar with is indeed a variable resistor.
Nothing gets redirected. The resistor is in the same circuit at the bulb,
regulating how much power gets to the bulb. When the variable resistor
makes the light dim, is it because less power is allowed to reach the
bulb, reducing power consumption.

<<< What is done is the dimmer varies what percentage of time the light is
on. It is cycled on and off with the frequency of the AC power line (60Hz
in the US; 50Hz in Israel). The percentage of that 1/60th or 1/50th of
a second for which the power is on is controlled by the dimmer knob. >>>

In other words, there is some kind of timer which supplies power for only
a portion of each cycle? Sounds complicated to me. I always perceived
dimmers as being almost as low-tech as the bulb itself.

I suspect that you did not mean to suggest that there is any kind of
timer. Perhaps what you meant is that while one might be able to adjust
a variable resistor on YT in a Direct Current circuit, no such heter
applies to an Alternating Current circuit? This is an interesting idea,
which I've not heard elsewhere, but would like to investigate.

Thanks and KVKT
Akiva Miller

On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 03:39:40PM -0400, Miller, Ken wrote:
: First of all, I think we should agree that it is entirely possible
: that there are several kinds of dimmers on the market....

Aside from the power wastage I mentioned earlier, the straight-forward
approach of using a rheostat or some other variable resister poses a
safety issue. The resistor will get hot, as the energy it dissipates
has to go somewhere. Having a box embedded in your wall that regularly
grows very hot isn't all that great of an idea.

: The kind of dimmer that I am familiar with is indeed a variable resistor.
: Nothing gets redirected. The resistor is in the same circuit at the bulb,
: regulating how much power gets to the bulb. When the variable resistor
: makes the light dim, is it because less power is allowed to reach the
: bulb, reducing power consumption.

Reducing power consumption of the bulb -- not of the circuit. The resistor
itself consumes power. Either by providing another path for the current
(if the resistor is in parallel with the light bulb) or by serving as
another voltage drop in the same path.

: <<< What is done is the dimmer varies what percentage of time the light is
: on. It is cycled on and off with the frequency of the AC power line (60Hz
: in the US; 50Hz in Israel). The percentage of that 1/60th or 1/50th of
: a second for which the power is on is controlled by the dimmer knob. >>>

: In other words, there is some kind of timer which supplies power for only
: a portion of each cycle? Sounds complicated to me. I always perceived
: dimmers as being almost as low-tech as the bulb itself.

No, it's not a timer; it uses the power level of the AC itself to trigger
the on-off switches. Remember that the voltage is coming in in a sine
wave. (Which is why I spoke of 60Hz or 50Hz).

But it actually does switch on and off quite rapidly, and by adjusting
the dimmer's dial you are adjusting how much of that sine wave translates
to closing the circuit.

My question was whether this is relevent. The filament itself doesn't
stop glowing or cool down in that fraction of a second. So perhaps the
halachah wouldn't be any different anyway.

I received an email from one poseik who opined that one can't
adjust the "flame" in the glowing filament since it's not for ocheil
nefesh. Regardless of the mechanics of the dimmer. I asked him why
"mitoch" wouldn't apply, but as that was minutes ago, I didn't get a
reply yet.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I recently caught a bit of flak when, in response to an inquiry, I
responded that I wasn't going to fill out a prozbul form. I have been
struck this year by the "sudden" appearance of prozbul forms, along with
rabbinical exhortations to avail oneself of the opportunity they offer
during the current sh'mittoh cycle. I am well aware of the halachic
history here and do not wish to get into a discussion of the necessity
or not biz'man hazzeh for ashkenazim who rely on the remoh's summary.
I am also well aware that many pos'qim rejected the remoh and adopted
a position more akin to the levush (BTW -- another data point for a
completely different discussion on the "permissability" of being choleiq
on the SA). For those interested I would commend R. Moshe's t'shuvoh
(Choshen Mishpot(2)-16) on the applicability of prozbul biz'man hazzeh --
he was asked whether a low-life loveh could avoid repaying his (poor)
malveh because the malveh had neglected to prozbul. He concludes in the
negative but along the way provides, as usual, a halachic retrospective
rich in relevant mareh m'qomos.

But I wish to ask a sociological question. Whatever one thinks of the
necessity of a prozbul, I believe that it is a factoid that it simply was
not a very widespread phenomenon here in the US. I don't recall any of my
terminally litvish (all of them rather distinguished eastern europeans)
roshei yeshivoh ever mentioning it as a practical matter when I grew up,
the rabbonim of the various shuls wouldn't mention it etc. But yet this
year the rav of the shul in which I daven in silver spring handed out
prozbul forms, family members tell me they have heard d'roshos on the
importance of the matter from rabbonim in NY and one gets the impression
there is some kind of widespread sh'mittas k'sofim his'or'rus at least in
NY. Indeed the exhortations to use a prozbul apparently extend to those
who in fact have no loans outstanding at all -- apparently interacting
with banks or whatever can be construed as loans for something -- and
"its better to be careful". Now -- where does all this come from --
in a sociological not halachic perspective? If I am correct that people
have not been doing this (outside of, let's call them elite, minorities)
and all of a sudden they are, inquiring minds want to know what has
catalyzed this just now. There are numerous other examples of minhogim
that were followed only within very restricted groups which for some
reason took-off and became general community wide minhogim, for good
or ill (the relatively recent -- and to my own perspective unfortunate
-- shul minhog of repeating zeicher-zecher is another fine example --
probably attributed to the spread of the MB). But what set this off? Also
-- how widespread is this? Do chasidish communities commonly practice
prozbuls these days as well?

I thought, for a few microseconds, that I had part of an answer when a
neighbor handed me an internet download which talked of the very recent
discovery of a manuscript which reveals the gra's promotion of prozbul
as a matter of course. But this report contained various statements
all lacking any internal credibility. I then noticed the originators
of the article for the first time -- it was the "De'ah Vidibur" (sic --
not my own transliterational scheme) site which I could not credit with
reporting the correct time. So I'm still left wondering. Why prozbul
now? Or am I just imagining all this.?

BTW, I've just been informed that my zdnetonebox.com address will be
shut down as of Friday, Sept 21.  Please note new e-mail address below.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 588-7424
mikefrankel2000@yahoo.com		H:  (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

My source's response to RMS:
> I really don't have time now to go into this further, so will write
> very briefly, just basic points from the top of my head. Indeed,
> neither the KedLevi nor NoamEl use this terminology of bitul, but their
> discussions of the stature of the tzadik makes this unavoidable. They,
> and practically all other texts, discuss the tzadik's total unification
> with Gd, to the point that the Shechinah is literally vested in them
> (cf. Shechinah medaberet mitoch gerono etc.) and becomes identified with
> them (in the words of Rabeinu Bachaya - who states in effect the same
> thing - hadobek nikro al shem Hanidbak! See his crucial (!) comm. on
> Tissa 37:7, and note carefully also on Lech 12:6 and Matos 32:27; and
> this is the same principle as elaborated by Ramban on Eikev 11:22 - cited
> in Derashot Haran 8, see there!). Kedushat Levi goes so far as to permit
> hishtachava'ah to the tzadik (Shoftim 17:3), again on the same premise
> (and note in this context Ikkarim 2 :28). What more do you need than
> "Havaya beheichal kodsho do R. Yitzchok" (Yerushalmi, Bikurim 3:3), or
> "man pnei Ho'odon Havaya etc. do Rashby" (Zohar II:38a) etc. - and then
> obviously es Hashem etc. lerabos etc. I could go on and on and on with
> literally innumerable sources in Chazal, Rishonim andAcharonim etc., and
> that is precisely what the Chassidic seforim emphasize and mean. If your
> stam makshon insists on the precise wording, I have news for him that he
> won't find it in Chabad-seforim either. We are talking about a concept,
> and that applies literally in all schools of Chassidism, is indeed at the
> very root of the Rebbe-Chossid relationship. By extension, it is NOT a
> Chassidic concept (as I said originally), but fundamental hashkofoh -
> AND halochoh of Torah (again as I stated originally), except that it
> received greater emphasis in Chassidus for whatever reasons (like so many
> other things of Torah). KvChT and kol tuv to all (including the makshan).

My two cents:

The truth is, regardless of whether there is a "right" or "wrong" answer,
there seems to be a very real difference of opinion on the twin issues
of YK and B between Chabad and Chagas Chassidus.

Al achas kamma v'kamma between Chassidus and Misnagdus.

So, Rabbosai, this is an area where further discussion and debate is
warranted. Tzum zach.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

The Torah writes, "Write down this song..."

Chazal learn this means writing the entire Torah.

The Rosh has a MAJOR chiddush and says writing Gemaras etc is also a
fulfillment of this mitzva.  The Rosh apparently learns that the "song"
refers to learning Torah.

The Bais Yosef asks if so, do we have a  mitzva to write a sefer Torah
today?

The answer is, of course oversimplified, we also need a sefer Torah.(Not my
point, so left insufficiently elaborated)

The Reb Zaddok HaKohen of Lublin said simply that the Rosh writes what is
required to pass on a FULL Torah.  Therefore, anyone who remembers all of
his Torah and does not personally need to write, should still write to
benefit his talmidim who do not remember everything.

Presumably lfi R' Zadok if the whole generation remembers all of Torah like
in the good old days, then there is no further reason to write down Torah
sheb'al peh.

Shlomo Goldstein

"Ki chok l'Yisroel hu" - Hashem can judge us when and as he pleases
any day. it is a chok for him to judge once a year, for our benefit,
for us to concentrate our efforts on a single day.

If we want another day, mee'stomo Hashem says, fine with Me.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

>>                                                     Assuming that there
>> are differences between RH and aseret yemei hateshuva is it clear that
>> a rabbinical decree of 2 days RH (whether 2 days or one long day seems
>> to be immaterial) would affect G-d's judgment?

> Perhaps we should just think of it as the Rabbonon having called the bais
> din shel mai'loh back into session for an extra appeal of our case.

What our rav said a couple of years ago is that the way the bais din shel
ma'aleh works can be seen a bit from the way the courts shel mata work.
First, they get all the pre-trial motions and other such "quick" things out
of the way, and then they start judging the cases that take a longer time.
The bais din shel ma'aleh takes care of the judgments of the tzaddikim
gmurim first, and the second day is for the bainonim, whose cases will take
longer to hear.

This can explain why we sometimes experience more nisayonot and challenges
on the second day -- a little bit harder to have the same kavanah, etc. --
the yeitzer hara is baiting us while we are being judged, as Hashem judges
us "as we are at that time".

---Rena

Rav E.Wasserman in Kuntras divrei sofrim writes that the authority of
Rabbinic Law is the finite desire to further Divine desires here on earth.
Rav W notes the three times Moshe Rabeinu enacted new legistlation
and the KBHU agreed. Perhaps based on this thought it indeed is a day
of judgement...

KVCT.....
Menachem Brick

I'm sure this question will sound simple, but why do we say (in Yaaleh
Veyavo) Yom Hazikaron, rather than Yom Hateruah or Yom Hamelucha ?
Why is Zichronot being placed above Malchyot and Shofarot?

Daniel Schiffman
schiffd@mail.biu.ac.il

On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 03:39:17PM -0400, Daniel Schiffman wrote:
: I'm sure this question will sound simple, but why do we say (in Yaaleh
: Veyavo) Yom Hazikaron, rather than Yom Hateruah or Yom Hamelucha ?
: Why is Zichronot being placed above Malchyot and Shofarot?

I wondered the same thing, although about malchuyos in particular. After
all, the idea that malchus is the theme of the day is why Malchuyos is
the same berachah as kedushas hayom.

And in that very berachah, in "Vatiten" and "Ya'aleh viyavo", we call
it otherwise.

-mi

> of the article for the first time -- it was the "De'ah Vidibur" (sic --
> not my own transliterational scheme) site which I could not credit with
> reporting the correct time. So I'm still left wondering. Why prozbul
> now? Or am I just imagining all this.?

Tthe article in question lists MANY sources in support of it's position. I
assume you have checked them and found them all to be misquotes or
fabrications?

Akiva

From: "Michael Frankel" <mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com>
> For those interested I would commend R. Moshe's t'shuvoh
> (Choshen Mishpot(2)-16) on the applicability of prozbul biz'man hazzeh --
> he was asked whether a low-life loveh could avoid repaying his (poor)
> malveh because the malveh had neglected to prozbul. He concludes in the
> negative but along the way provides, as usual, a halachic retrospective
> rich in relevant mareh m'qomos.

Your question is very interesting - but a minor correction - it is
Choshen Mishpat II #15

Rav Moshe notes that paying back debts when there is no prozbul is more
than just midos chassidus and that some sin is incurred

Of greater interest is his conclusion that, "Nevertheless, l'maaseh the
borrower has to repay the loan. If the lender can not find a court who
will attend to the matter because they assume that the debt is canceled
- he can take the law into his own hands by taking the money. Logically
he can also go to a non Jewish secular court if he can't take the money
directly himself. Since the ancient practice is that the debt is not
cancelled, the Jewish courts refusal to let him collect in secular court
is not in accord with the halacha. Even though the Rema states that in
a case where a person can't get the money himself he is not allowed to
go to a non Jewish secular court - but this case is different....In a
case where the din is clearly in his favor and he has the right to take
it himself it is possible also to do it by means of non Jews....

The implications of this are far reaching.

Daniel Eidensohn

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/vayelech/haft.html

I got drafted to give a drasha at shul this shabbos (it's usually no
more than 5 minutes, but on Shabbos Shuva we're allowed seven or eight).
Here's the plan:

1. Why not have Yom Kippur immediately after Rosh haShana? For most of
us the days between are a let-down rather than a heightened experience
of mitzvoth and tshuva.

2. See H. Hagiga 3:6 where the Rambam describes that even non-Hebrew
speakers, people who can't hear, and knowledgable scholars must hear
hakhel as though it came from Sinai, (and Ramban who says that, for
Chazal, taf means infants). What is the function of hakhel?

 3. See Nedarim 38 Torah lo nitnah ela l'moshe ulzaro, umoshe tuv ayin
 ... zehu
pilpulo shel Torah. The Rogachever (in parshath vayelech) says that
pilpulo shel Torah is l'havin taamei Torah.

4. That is, there are two types of talmud Torah, knowing halacha psuka,
and knowing taamei Torah. The mitzva of hakhel reflects the former,
and it can be learned (to some extent), even visually, in any place Jews
are assembled to do mitzvoth. The mitzva of v'shinantam l'vanecha is the
latter, and requires skilled understanding (see the maharal's chiddushei
aggadoth on the gemara in Nedarim).

5. I claim, that, analogously, there are two types of tshuva. The first
is a matter of resolving not to do any more aveiroth and not to refrain
from doing mitzvoth, either through will and resolve alone, or through
tachbuloth. This is analogous to knowing what to do. The second requires
understanding what one's self, klal Yisrael (and, indeed, the whole world)
needs, what one's skills are, and resolving to apply those skills to
the betterment of the klal as well as ones' self (Rabbi Kook discusses
this at length in Oroth HaTeshuva). This is analogous to understanding
taamei Torah.

6. See the gemara in Brachoth "kol halan 7 yamim bli chalom nikra ra",
and the Gra's comment (which I have never seen in print) that every seven
days includes Shabbat, and if someone can go through Shabbat without
realizing that his primary pursuits in olam hazeh are a fantasy (chalom)
he's in big trouble.

7. Hence we need a Shabbat between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur so we'll
be able to think about the context of our tshuva, and perform the second
kind of tshuva. And the way to have a Shabbat in the middle is to have
a whole week.

Any comments?

David Riceman

The Rambams emphasis on sechar veonesh I believe is premised upon
the thought that for there not to be any form of the after life
sechar veonesh that would in itself negate the divine sense of utter
good. Justice requires punishment and reward . otherwise our actions have
no consequence, thus negating the KBHU role in this world and questioning
his sence of good and evil.I do not believe that it was in contrast to
any sadducean belief

KVCT
Menachem Brick

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> My source's comments:
>> As for the earlier email re cholek al rabo, your correspondent there
>> failed to quote the whole Remo: you can argue with clear absolute proof to
>> the contrary, but not without.

The term he used is "raayoth vehochachoth", which is less than "clear absolute
proof".  The Ramban, in his introduction to Milhamoth HaShem, says that there is
no such thing as absolute proof in halachic disputes.

>>                                   And even then, first you have to present
>> the alleged proof, for may be the rebbe may have a refutation thereof.

No, this is a different halacha (242:31) which applies to colleagues (chaver).
The Rama says explicitly, however, that it applies only to that application of
the halacha (otho maaseh), and that one need not take the horaah as a precedent.

>> Secondly, matters of halachah are different than other type  of
>> pronouncements. Halachah is objective and must provide a source (meheichon
>> dantuni), and without that is invalid.

See the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayoth Sotah 3:3 (at the end) where he says that
the difference between halacha and hashkafa (Kafih's translation) is that we
don't pasken disputes in hashkafa.

At this point I desire Rabbi B's reassurance that he knows what impeccable
means, and that his anonymous source is, in fact, an impeccable transmitter of
Chabad thought since (see my second comment) he is clearly not impeccable in
halachic issues.

David Riceman

At 09:23 AM 9/21/01 -0400, David Riceman wrote:
...
>> Secondly, matters of halachah are different than other type  of
>> pronouncements. Halachah is objective and must provide a source (meheichon
>> dantuni), and without that is invalid.

>See the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayoth Sotah 3:3 (at the end) where he says 
>that the difference between halacha and hashkafa (Kafih's translation) is 
>that we don't pasken disputes in hashkafa.

>At this point I desire Rabbi B's reassurance that he knows what impeccable 
>means, and that his anonymous source is, in fact, an impeccable 
>transmitter of Chabad thought since (see my second comment) he is clearly 
>not impeccable in halachic issues.

I looked up impeccable in the dictionary. No, I would not say he is
impeccable by *that* definition. Let us say just "highly reputable and
knowledgeable."

Nevertheless, he does approach impeccability in terms of Chabad. And that
is important, because we are not discussing the "emes" of the issues,
but rather the relative positions therein. I believe my source represents
Chabad thinking to its fullest extent.

I would like to note that in my "Forks" essay I intentionally avoided the
YK and B issues. While they are of importance, to my mind (and here I am
sure that both the Chabad and the Chagas sides will disagree with me),
not at the core of what divides the schools of early Chassidus. They were,
rather, I believe, later developed into critical facets of Chassidus,
and additional points of departure between Chabad and Chagas and Chassidus
and Misnagdus.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

I have just read the article in Journal of Halacha and Contemporary
Society by (new) list member R' Mendel Singer. Comments? (Faxed on request
if R' Mendel (or the requester) asks permission, call 212 334-9285,
Mrs. Claire Friedman, or ascertains that none is required).

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[Or, you can fax it to me at (413) 403-9905 and I can put the PDF on
line. Assuming no problem with copyright or reshus. -mi]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 03:20:07PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:                                                     Efrayim was called 
: because of "Hifrani...Beretz Onyee...

Of course. However, having a classic yeshiva education, it was Tosafos's
derashah on that name that first leaped to mind, not the pasuk. <sigh,
(Not that the need to use a rishon's derashah invalidates my little
pshetl.) FWIW, Tosafos were probably basing themselves on Hoshea 7:8,
who also uses the Efrayim - efer connection.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:31:22AM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: He mentioned the pasuk in Yonah that "ha'aniya chisheva lehishaver" and
: that the events of the week showed us that when there is a his'orerus
: of midas hadin, nobody anywhere is secure. (Rav Matisyahu Solomon said
: this last MONDAY night, before the incidents!)

An interesting metaphor. AFAIK, the only non-Jewish city ever lamented
in Tanach (as opposed to forewarned) is Yechezkel's lament for Tzor.
(Used by my LOR in his pre-shofar derashah.) It was overcome by
"mayim rabim". Which brings us to Yonah's aniyah...

: He mentioned a Maharal in Nesiv Hateshuva that Avraham was the first
: to do teshuva me'ahava...

The Medrash Rabba says that Re'uvein was the first one to do teshuvah,
after the incident with the duda'im. As we know of earlier cases, it's
hard to understand this medrash. Obviously the Maharal wouldn't go with
the teiretz that he was the first to do teshuvah mei'ahavah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

I thought this devar Torah (which returns us to Euthyphro's dilemma) would
be of interest.

-mi

INSIGHT
5762 -- #01

IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht <nishma@interlog.com>

Belief in a deity is one of the most frightening thoughts within human
existence. Projection of an all-powerful divine being and an afterlife
allows the human being to ignore the parameters of rationality and define
life within totally different perceptions. Black can be white and white
can be black. Right is potentially wrong and wrong is potentially right.

The monumental tragedy that befell the world last week is an example of
the potential evil that can be the product of a belief. The intensely
sad realization that these terrorists were, probably, shouting in praise
of their deity as they flew the hijacked planes, filled with innocents,
into their targets, causes one to shiver. Their religion turned black
into white, declaring this heinous crime a divinely-ordained act; rather
than fearing death, they embraced it as they expected a result of divine
bliss. There are those that argue that atheism is the root of the greatest
evil. History in general, and Jewish history in particular, I believe,
cries otherwise. The greatest evil is done in the name of religion.

Of course, there are those who will contend, pointing to Nazism as the
strongest proof, that atheism is still the root of greater evil. Still,
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik [1] insists that the Holocaust could not have
taken place if not for the Catholic Church's preaching against the Jew
over the centuries. It is religion that can define a person sub-human and
deserving death even as our eyes only see a human being like all other
human beings. It is religion that can turn evil into good. Atheism can
cause one to act destructively but only within the borders of concrete
self-interest. Religion can cause one to act beyond these parameters. [2]
Ramban writes, at the end of The Disputation, that King James of Aragon
declared, in reference to Ramban, that never before has he seen one who
is without justice argue so well. Logic and arguments do not sway the
one who acts in the name of religion. He is locked into his conclusion;
his belief in his deity -- and what he believes his deity to command --
inherently defeats any argument. There is no point of conversation;
there is no point of connection. The result is frightening.

But Judaism and Torah are different -- that is what we would say. That
is what we would like to believe. But is it so? And if so, how? When
Khomeini came to power, a friend of mine told me that he felt that it
was a great shame that Khomeini was not Jewish. What a wonderful Jew he
would make, was my friend's declaration. I shuddered at the thought, but
on the surface was he not correct? Do we not praise overall commitment to
faith? Is there not a value in remaining adamant in our convictions even
as the nations of the world challenge them? [3] Do we not place the Will
of G-d above the parameters of human morality? Even as I am revolted
by the actions of these religious terrorists -- and I stand in total
opposition not only to their faith but their very idea of faith --
I recognize that the language of Torah could be similarly hijacked
to present a false defence of evil. How do I show that this would-be
hijacking is not within the truth of Torah?

Akedat Yitzchak, the binding of Isaac, [4] is read on the second day
of Rosh Hashanah. It is a most powerful statement of faith but,
more importantly, it is a statement of the priority of the Will
of G-d over our moral senses. Yet this idea opens the trap for the
pitfalls of religion. Parameters are lost; belief opens the realm of
possibilities. Akedat Yitzchak is frightening. Without this idea, however,
G-d is no longer G-d. G-d is no longer above all for G-d becomes subject
to parameters. Unbridled belief is frightening but with any parameters
G-d becomes bound. As such, religion, to truly reflect G-d, must be
boundless and accept the possibility of that which is beyond us. To
accept G-d means to accept the possibility that what He declares white
is, in fact, white even as we see black. This is not only part of Torah,
it must be part of Torah. And it is frightening.

It is Akedat Yitzchak itself that provides the answer -- and the answer is
confusion. Avraham says to Yitzchak that G-d will show the lamb for the
sacrifice. Avraham says to the servants: we will return. Notwithstanding
Rashi's comments, the simple reading is confusion. This is reinforced
in Yalkut Shimoni, Bereishit 101 which describes Avraham questioning G-d
at the conclusion of the episode. If G-d already declared that Yitzchak
was to be the father of Avraham's generations, how could G-d call for
his sacrifice? The question is not a challenge of G-d. The question is
the greatest statement of the Omnipotence of G-d. When we question, we
recognize the chasm that exists between us and G-d. And G-d's answer to
Avraham was that Avraham was mistaken -- G-d never ordered a sacrifice. If
a chasm exists between Man and G-d, how can Man ever be sure that he has
heard G-d correctly? We are called upon to listen to G-d but as human
beings -- and that must demand confusion. Are we ever sure? As human
beings the answer must be no even as we strive to act in accordance with
the Divine command. Thereby, we recognize the Awesomeness of G-d.

The problem of belief lies in the need for the human being to be sure. He
thinks that his belief is sure when he ignores all other voices --
within himself and within humanity -- and gives himself up to his
"beliefs." He thinks he then hears the true voice of the deity. But he
in fact only hears his own voice -- exactly because he is sure. Reliance
upon our Divinely-given human perceptions is how we approach the world
-- they are necessary. They cannot be forsaken. But in recognition
of the Divine, they also cannot be relied upon totally. When there
is collision -- there is confusion. It is at this point of confusion
that we truly find G-d. Dogma and fanaticism believe that they find the
deity in certainty -- a certainty that declares normal human perceptions
incorrect. Torah declares that we find G-d in our own recognition that
we do not understand. We wonder, we question, we challenge, we strive
for synthesis of our internal perceptions and the external directive;
we wish to make sure that we truly hear G-d's voice -- and we doubt. Not
because we doubt G-d but because we doubt ourselves and our ability to
hear G-d. We are overwhelmed by His Presence.

Khomeini could never have been a good Jew because he could not question
himself. He could not be unsure; he could not be confused. Certainty
results in the creation of a deity in the image of a man. This is
the realm of evil -- the source of the greatest evil for there is no
parameters on such human beings. The perception of Torah is that G-d has
no parameters -- but the human being does. We are not G-d. The more we
understand the awesomeness of the gulf between us and G-d, the more we
must recognize our lack of comprehension even as our lives, through the
study of Torah, are devoted to that comprehension; even as our lives,
through the commands of Torah, demand action.

Ultimately this is the lesson of Akedat Yitzchak. We stand in confusion
in the presence of G-d. On Rosh Hashanah, as we declare G-d, King,
we are called upon to recognize the chasm that exists between us and
Him. It is in this unsurety that the Jew remains unique and Torah can
never be hijacked by evil -- the evil of Man thinking he is sure, of
Man pretending to be G-d.



Footnotes
"""""""""
1) As presented in Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Rav, Insight 18.10.

2) Another response to the challenge that atheism is a greater root
of evil can be found in Rabbi Soloveitchik's further argument that the
various modern "isms" -- communism, fascism -- are, in fact, forms of
idolatry. See Rabbi Abraham Besdin, Reflections of the Rav, "Profundity
of Jewish Folk Wisdom" and "Teaching with Clarity and Empathy." Belief
reads into reality constructs that are not otherwise there; the 'Isms"
do this as well as conventional religion. In the movie Schindler's List,
the chilling execution of the Nazi commandant drives home this point.

3) See Rashi, Bamidbar 19:2. Furthermore, the various attacks, throughout
history, upon circumcision always demanded such Jewish conviction. See,
for example, Tanchuma, Tazria 5.

4) Bereishit 22:1-19.

*******************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]